Legal Opinion

Nottingham & Wrenn Co. v. American Coal Exporting Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided August 21, 1929Published

1Opinion of the CourtThacher, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). If the agreement, the validity of which is now conceded, were to be construed in ignorance of the business to which it relates and the situation and necessities of the parties, one would say at once that the obligation expressed was to deliver coal actually produced from Monte Mines No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3. Indeed, the language is so plain that its normal meaning could hardly be made more clear. But words are creatures of their environment. They take color and sense from the transactions in which they are employed, and if truly understood are not always to…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Brawley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Nash v. TowneSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  3. Pine River Logging Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  4. Bradley v. Washington, Alexandria, & Georgetown Steam Packet Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1839
  5. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway v. Denver and Rio Grande RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1892

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API